The stories were heart wrenching as news trickled in about Hillary Clinton’s pitiable reaction to the Democrats’ stunning (to her and liberals at least) defeat on Election Night last November.

First there was Hillary’s failure to show up to her “victory” party to concede to Donald Trump in the wee morning hours of November 9. The networks (and Trump himself) reported that Clinton had called the president-elect to wish him congratulations, yet the losing candidate sent advisor and spokesman John Podesta in her stead to the un-shattered glass-ceilinged Javits Center in New York City to speak to what remained of her sobbing revelers.

Perhaps the Clinton brains felt they could discover tens of thousands of additional votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin that would tip the somewhat lopsided Trump total more towards the Democrat side and hand them at least an argument that the election wasn’t over yet.

Whatever the reason, Clinton waited until almost noon on the day after the election to officially capitulate. The weeks after that day found her [supposedly] reflective, as she reportedly took long walks in the woods near her New York home with hubby Bill or even by herself (her lifetime taxpayer-sponsored Secret Service detail would no doubt have been nearby). After years of grueling campaigning Hillary finally experienced the untethered time to reflect on her life and what it meant.

Those walks helped get her head straight…if it’s even possible.

Now that Hillary’s finally feeling better about herself she’s leaving the past behind and looking to the future. Some (including yours truly) have speculated Clinton will run again in 2020, but for now she’s intent on helping Democrats trip up her 2016 vanquisher by assisting the party’s congressman and senators in fighting the good fight next year.

“Clinton has already launched a PAC aimed at helping congressional Democratic candidates in 2018, signaling the former first lady, senator and secretary of State is ready to help her party with fundraising.

“She also is looking at the House districts she won in last year’s presidential contest against Donald Trump as part of an autopsy of her failed campaign, according to two sources who have spoken to the former secretary of State.”

Parnes’ article suggests California will be the main focus of Clinton’s new efforts since there are seven districts there that went for Hillary on Election Day yet still returned Republican incumbent congressmen to the House. Democrats seem to believe there’s electoral gold in the hills of the Golden State and we’re not even talking about the famous miner-forty-niners who made the state famous for riches all those years ago.

It’s only logical Democrats would feel this way. If there’s a way to begin the process of trying to take back the House, California and the Hillary-favoring swing districts across the country would be a good place to look. Republicans are welcoming the news of Hillary’s plan to rejoin the political fray and Democrat consultants are cautioning their party will need more than a star-studded line-up of aging former officeholders to convince enough people to come out and support their candidates now.

From an admittedly non-objective observer’s perspective I can’t understand how Hillary believes she can somehow remake herself for the thousandth time and still help her party win something next year when she was so clearly a drag on the Democrats’ fortunes last November. Sure, Donald Trump was a strong candidate in a number of geographic regions but he wasn’t a consensus-type candidate who automatically drew backers because of his good looks and unorthodox campaigning style.

Trump certainly won the presidency but it could just as credibly be contended Hillary Clinton lost it. Her “deplorables” rhetoric, failure to vigorously campaign and stubborn insistence on dictating a strictly anti-Trump message was a certain loser in most sections of America. If you don’t believe it, glance at the sea of red detailing where Trump won vis-à-vis Clinton. If the red on the map represented arid desert land and the blue splotches were the only water available nearly the entire country would perish due to dehydration.

The good news for Republicans is the Democrats’ post-Obama “leaders” aren’t any closer to discovering the real reasons why they lost last year than they were on the day after the election. As this year’s series of special congressional elections indicated, it’s not enough for Democrats just to whine and gripe about Trump’s tweets, Russian meddling or the Republicans’ yet unrealized agenda.

Their message still only reaches the angriest of liberal voters out there. If Hollywood leftists were indicative of the rest of America the Democrats would enjoy majorities the size of those in the California legislature. But they don’t. Outside of the coasts and large cities the Democrats don’t offer people much of a reason to join them. They’re the party of the elites now. If you know an out-of-touch snob, chances are he or she is a registered Democrat.

Not only that, but they’re misguided on the whole notion of gender roles and feminism too.

Speaking of gender equality, Maddie Mehr wrote at The American Conservative, “The women [Alexis de] Tocqueville saw were not CEOs or celebrities, politicians or professional athletes. They were largely confined to the home: cleaning, cooking, taking care of children. But to the young political historian, no position seemed more important. ‘There have never been free societies without morals, and…it is the woman that molds the morals,’ he wrote. Tocqueville saw American women as the keystone of the family, the ones who held everyone else together.

“By taking primary responsibility for the home, American women allowed their husbands to fulfill their roles as providers and protectors, and they both worked toward a common goal: strengthening the family. These traditional roles of men and women, maligned today as harmful ‘gender stereotypes,’ are precisely what helped to make America exceptional in Tocqueville’s eyes.”

Simply put, Hillary and the Democrats fail on this issue because they assume all or even most women are unhappy with their roles in society and in the culture. Just a brief look around signifies it’s just the opposite.

I recently went to Disneyland with my children, a semi-regular pilgrimage we’ve made since their youngest days. There’s little doubt the crowd is much more “diverse” than it used to be but one thing that hasn’t changed over the years is the social behavior of the young people.

Far from being a breeding ground for gender-bending neutrality I saw multitudes of young ladies dressed up to impress young men (and vice-versa) as much as ever at the Magic Kingdom. To the extent an amusement park is a representative sample of culture, there’s little doubt girls still enjoy being girls and boys still like being boys.

Disney has made headlines in recent years for the company’s politically correct overt acceptance of the LGBTQ lobby and for acquiescing to the minority groups’ demands for accommodation, yet I didn’t observe a single individual who outwardly fit the “LGBTQ” description (other than maybe pirate Jack Sparrow but even he doesn’t pretend to be a woman). Maybe they’re all just observing “don’t ask/don’t tell” at Disneyland but even the park’s bathrooms are still marked “Women” and “Men” and there doesn’t appear to be any unrest among the visitors because of it.

How does Disneyland relate to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats? The minority party’s stubborn insistence on bludgeoning the entire country with false notions of discord between the races and sexes is repelling the “normal” people away from them. If there isn’t a problem with gender functions at a liberal enclave like Disneyland in the middle of a sea of progressivism that is California, where are they going to find people who are upset and motivated by the liberal gobbledygook they’re peddling to the population at large?

Hillary can try all she wants to make a political comeback but unless she and the Democrats ditch their failing message and insistence on dividing everyone into us-versus-them subgroups by race and gender then they won’t be any more successful than they were the last time in convincing people to choose them.

Considering the party continues it's penchant for block & resistance, they will lose again and again. Yesterday a feminist declared that Ivanka was too beautiful and she wore too many pretty girly dresses! Wasn't the entire feminist movement based on women having the freedom to be themselves, and not JUDGED by how they looked or what they wore? Today's feminists, aka feminazis, have nothing in common with, or can relate in any way, to today's modern woman. They despise women who want families, not abortions, but they also despise successful women who aren't just "beautiful", but are married, have children, and do it all! Everything the movement preached for and marched for is evident today everywhere you look, and these feminazis are incapable of accepting it, even though they had marched for exactly that! Instead, they dress up in vagina costumes with pussy hats on declaring ONLY the liberal woman who is pro-baby murder, ignores female mutilation of young girls, adheres to political correctness, shuts off opinion and discussion, and is more concerned with the fate of illegals and refugees over the American citizen...is a real, true blue woman of the age!

Bullcrap.

But...they will continue their hatred of all women, limiting themselves only to those haters who dare to declare their humanity is founded in their vagina costumes and abortion clinics...the true feminazi... continues to march against God, country, family, and culture. Eventually, they will live their lives, die out, and their legacy dying with them. The rest of us wave good riddance, and continue with our lives wearing beautiful dresses instead of vagina costumes. I'd like to meet the person who would find that offensive!